Nuccia, at out center you cannot do any adjustments to anything when scanning. It is all done for you. No one can scan by themselves. You can sit with them but it is strictly hands off. You get what they decide is okay. Frustrating! By the way, the cost of each scan is 25 cents.

WHAT????? Are you kidding me???

That is just ridiculous. I would somehow contact Salt Lake and speak to someone there. I can understand (sort of) the "hands off" thing, but to charge 25 cents for a scan?

I am serious about the scan charge..............I do not print, I just save it to my flash drive. Since I do not usually carry money around with me I have, more than once, counted pennies in the bottom of my purse.

I would not be surprised if there is a camera lens that can take pictures of the microfilm well. I have a friend who knows about professional cameras although a camera digital or analog that has changeable lenses is a min of about $500 for the camera alone and I think that this device would be worth the extra hundreds of $ vs a camera

Although how portable is it really

lilbees wrote:

While searching the Internet for any help in dong the photographing of microfilm I found this website which is Eastman's Online Genealogy Forum

I understand there are several members who photograph the microfilm records I don't believe the cameras they use are that expensive. I could be wrong.

But on the forum I mentioned, the discussion has mentioned many brands of cameras most of which are rather inexpensive.

They do mention what you would need on a camera to do a successful job but most $100 cameras (or less on sale) seem to be able to work. From what I have read, but not practiced yet, is the longer exposure time and the use of no flash.

I know there is more involved but I am beginning to have faith I can do it with my little digital camera and a whole lot of patience.

Sounds like you are saying that you need a camera where you can change the shutter speed. does your camera do that?

lilbees wrote:

I understand there are several members who photograph the microfilm records I don't believe the cameras they use are that expensive. I could be wrong.

But on the forum I mentioned, the discussion has mentioned many brands of cameras most of which are rather inexpensive.

They do mention what you would need on a camera to do a successful job but most $100 cameras (or less on sale) seem to be able to work. From what I have read, but not practiced yet, is the longer exposure time and the use of no flash.

I know there is more involved but I am beginning to have faith I can do it with my little digital camera and a whole lot of patience.

lilbees

Last edited by alanmercieca on Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Alan, my camera has an autofocus. I can set it for closeups which slows the shutter speed. Don't know how it really works but that is what I am told to set it on. Just an FYI, I have an HP Photosmart. Doesn't jump through hoops and is pretty basic. But, it is digital and has the simple settings of close and far.

I was doing research online and I read that digital cameras take better pictures of microfilm than what can be seen from a microfilm reader. I was reading that a tripod is very important. and that a 15 to 30 second shutter speed is very important 60 seconds seems to not be to slow either

I have used a simple point and shoot digital camera to take pictures of microfilm. I experimented with using a higher ASA setting and no flash, flash, etc. Most all point and shoot cameras now offer adequate controls to be able to change settings for this; however, I found the physical conditions of projecting the images from the film at the FHC where I go to be too prohibiting to obtain quality photos. The image is projected through a lens mounted overhead onto an inclined plane below so distortion is always inherent in this setup. This distortion makes it almost impossible to take a clear photo. Parts of the photo will be in focus while other parts will reflect the inherent distortion, so one must take several photos to be able to get images which are suitable for research or documentation. Also the better the camera the better the results; a digital SLR has so much more control that extra cost is worth it.

Along the same lines, a scanner capable of scanning 35 MM slides and/or film negatives could be used to make digital images directly from the film. The process would be very time consuming but the images would be much superior to the projected images available at FHC's and could be viewed on a PC, used to produce a much clearer printed copy, etc. I have a scanner which does the things I've mentioned--I've scanned thousands of old 35 MM slides and converted them to digital images with excellent results. One could review the films at FHC and note the images of interest and, if it were permitted to take the films home, one could make direct scans as I mentioned above; however, I don't believe it is permitted to take the films off the premises of the FHC.

My FHC charges 25 cents per scan and there is only one machine capable of performing this function. The scan consists of a print out not a digital image that can be saved to a flash drive and there are no provisions whatsoever to save research to a flash drive except for certain information one downloads from a PC with an internet connection. I take the paper scans and rescan them on my scanner at home at the highest possible resolution I can so that I can produce a slighter better image than the flawed one I paid for at FHC, and I also digitize it at the same time. The genealogy program I use, iFamilyForLeopard which is Mac only software, allows me to use the images to document the facts entered as a visual reference of sources, etc. My scanner, old by today's standards, is an Epson Stylus Photo RX500 and is capable of scanning 4 35 MM slides at a time or nearly 9 inches of film so it is readily apparent the the process is slow at best; it can also be quite rewarding. Be forewarned that a certain amount of practice and experimentation is necessary to progress to the point that one gets the kind of results one seeks.

I recently purchased a more powerful digital camera and have been considering revisiting the whole process of taking digital photographs of the film projections at FHC. It would be nice if my FHC were amenable to experimenting with one projection setup, at least, to ascertain if digital photographs could be a viable low-cost option that it might support. I suppose the 25 cent per scan is a revenue that this small FHC needs to defray operations along with the $5.50 per film fee. Since I am in NC, there are almost no films from Italy, let alone Sicily on permanent reserve, in fact, I had to wait more than three months to get films from Belmonte Mezzagno. Thankfully, I received considerable, unselfish aid and support from a fellow researcher whose ancestors were from Belmonte--she lived in a different part of the country and the Belmonte images were on permanent reserve at her FHC.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. It just seems that with so much technology available, at considerably lower cost than ever before, it is frustrating that we have to wrestle with processes that are riddled with so many inherent flaws. And yet, I am grateful for all of the information that has been made available by the LDS and its network of FHC's.

I have been watching this thread carefully. I have interest in using these methods, only, when I think of those weekly trips to the FHL, I cringe. Mine was a bit behind the times 16 years ago, when none of their readers even had a lens to view these italian films, so they allowed me to use their reader, printer. It took them 2 years to get the proper lens and by then I was done with what I had been doing. I was honestly happy, that I had to use the printer, because unlike others..I didnt have to take the film off one machine, to get a copy off another..and the other people couldnt do that with me on the printer. I had to get off the last 15 minutes so people could use it. If I were those people, I wouldnt have been a happy camper.

That said...I never thought there would be a day, when we would see any of these records, online. The only problem is..indexing these records goes slow as snails and the italian records are almost at a standstill. I can honestly say, that at ancestry...only myself and another woman are typing them. This would be fine, if there was the needed 3rd person to arbitrate them. We cant arbitrate our own, so those typed records are just sitting there. I know this, because..in the list that I see when I go to choose something to arbitrate..no italian records show. (I cant see my own), but in their forums, I have people telling me how many sets they see. Because of this..the lack of people willing to work on italian records..it severely stalls this process. (If anyone is interested in working on this there, I can give you a quick tip on how you can rise to arbitrator in about 2 days).

Anyway.......in viewing the site of James Bianco..and the way he setup his records..which needed no indexing..I dont know why these places dont do that. It would just be a matter of them taking them off the film (which they are doing anyway) and setting them up the way his are set up. But..I guess you cant teach old dogs new tricks. In genealogy searching (prior to computers) they always needed indexes. With computers, and James idea, you dont need them..nor all of the work and frustration it is taking to make them.

At least I now know that I am not the only one having to pay 25 cents a scan. Again, I do understand the need to try and help to defray the costs of the library. I am sure there are many other centers who also charge for the scan.

I read something on the internet that made me think that it's possible to get great photos from the microfilm it's self using a digital camera.

The higher the MP (picture resolution) of the picture the more that the microfilm image is enlarged and by what I read the results can be very clear.

I read something that said taking pictures of the microfilm brings much higher quality results than any microfilm reader can show on it's screen

Eleven wrote:

I have been watching this thread carefully. I have interest in using these methods, only, when I think of those weekly trips to the FHL, I cringe. Mine was a bit behind the times 16 years ago, when none of their readers even had a lens to view these italian films, so they allowed me to use their reader, printer. It took them 2 years to get the proper lens and by then I was done with what I had been doing. I was honestly happy, that I had to use the printer, because unlike others..I didnt have to take the film off one machine, to get a copy off another..and the other people couldnt do that with me on the printer. I had to get off the last 15 minutes so people could use it. If I were those people, I wouldnt have been a happy camper.

That said...I never thought there would be a day, when we would see any of these records, online. The only problem is..indexing these records goes slow as snails and the italian records are almost at a standstill. I can honestly say, that at ancestry...only myself and another woman are typing them. This would be fine, if there was the needed 3rd person to arbitrate them. We cant arbitrate our own, so those typed records are just sitting there. I know this, because..in the list that I see when I go to choose something to arbitrate..no italian records show. (I cant see my own), but in their forums, I have people telling me how many sets they see. Because of this..the lack of people willing to work on italian records..it severely stalls this process. (If anyone is interested in working on this there, I can give you a quick tip on how you can rise to arbitrator in about 2 days).

Anyway.......in viewing the site of James Bianco..and the way he setup his records..which needed no indexing..I dont know why these places dont do that. It would just be a matter of them taking them off the film (which they are doing anyway) and setting them up the way his are set up. But..I guess you cant teach old dogs new tricks. In genealogy searching (prior to computers) they always needed indexes. With computers, and James idea, you dont need them..nor all of the work and frustration it is taking to make them.

You do get great images from that but I can't do it..........I'm too shaky when I take the photo's so mine turned out really bad. A gentleman at my center uses his camera and his images are wonderful but he built himself an apparatus that clamps on to the sides of the reader and his camera sits on that (so no movement). Fortunately for me I can scan and save my images to my usb stick.

A tripod can be used with most cameras and a decent tripod can be positioned in just about any position and adjusted to a reasonable hight. The gentleman at the FHC has made what seems like a do it yourself tripod that mounts to the microfilm reader which can be very inexpensive to make. I'd only be afraid of the camera falling off if I made one although I do have a great idea of how to make one.

A later thought:

I think that most digital cameras can be mounted on a tripod these days and I think that the connections are all standard. I am thinking that maybe online low end tripods can be found ...taking the tripod apart and attaching one of those flexible things that you can wrap around tools and flex around to any position.

BillieDeKid wrote:

Hi alanmercieca

You do get great images from that but I can't do it..........I'm too shaky when I take the photo's so mine turned out really bad. A gentleman at my center uses his camera and his images are wonderful but he built himself an apparatus that clamps on to the sides of the reader and his camera sits on that (so no movement). Fortunately for me I can scan and save my images to my usb stick.

Your idea for your do-it-yourself sounds interesting. If you ever make a prototype please post a photo of it. A few people around here can tell you that I like to come up with my own designs for various things so I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum

The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of Gente di Mare Genealogy.
We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the opinions of the poster.
Interactive software released under GNU GPL,
Code Credits,
Privacy Policy